WSJ: Sprint looking at T-Mobile purchase

[Fraydog]

I don't know if this is a good idea yet, myself.

 

I think Sprint is close to finally turning the corner with network performance. Maybe they would be better off just buying USCC and CSpire as the largest remaining regionals and see what happens in the future with T-Mobile.

[CrimsonKnightDX]

No thanks, I don't like the idea of less competition.

 

I think it would actually provide better competition to the top carriers, now that Sprint would actually be a serious competitor. 

[JosefTor]

I am concerned that without t-mobile the industry won't have as much competition as I've noticed sprint is now usually the last to do something uncarrier. But... I fear that we out t-mobile sprint will not last as T-mobile is stealing all of sprint's customers since it is the same minded customer base. Without free international roaming I'm not sure what I would do. I've been spoiled for too long.

[Destroyallcubes]

Doesn't T-Mobile have decent edge coverage? it would allow NV to be stretched to more sights and would allow them to decommission edge and put up LTE on 1900, with at least 10+10 mhz configuration, some spectrum scrunched areas would be 5 + 5. But most should be 10 + 10 mHZ. It would a crazy amount of spectrum. I personally don't think it'd go through, because it would leave a hug gap between 3 and the 4th place wireless providers

[JimBob]

My average cost per Sprint share is close to $6, so I am hoping the stock hits above $9 next week.

[Fraydog]

http://publicknowledge.org/sprint-tmo-nope

 

The Public Knowledge chair has weighed in, the tl;dr is in the link.

[tgrgrd00]

I am in the how about finishing all phases of NV in your markets first camp. Only then consider a merger with the TMo. Jeez, whoever said Sprint has ADD is on to something. If I had tri-band operational on my N5 I would feel differently.

[ChadBroChillz]

I am against this move. I think buying regional carriers like USCC and Cspire while increasing coverage organically would be a smarter move. I feel this move would only be for customers, since spectrum does not really match up.

 

I also think this could force the FCC to reconsider plans for limiting the big two in future auctions as well as lead to restructuring of how 2.5Ghz spectrum is counted against the spectrum screen.

[WiWavelength]

The immediate histrionics from T-Mobile fanboys and the magenta loving tech press are downright annoying.  A few thoughts...

1. Sprint-Nextel merger.  The negative allusions to an eight year old merger under different leadership are misplaced.  If any wireless operator has learned from the mistakes of a poorly executed, drawn out integration strategy, it is Sprint.  That learning will serve Sprint well in any future mergers.  Additionally, Sprint and Nextel were on different planets both spectrally and technologically.  Times have changed.  Sprint and T-Mobile are now more similar than many seem to realize.
2. 600 MHz auction.  Sprint and T-Mobile do not want to bid against one another should the auction actually happen in 2015.  That would just inflate bidding and practically ensure that one or the other would come away empty handed in many markets, as there will not be enough spectrum to go around for four national operators plus regional operators.
3. Site redundancy.  Running four national networks basically in parallel is a great deal for tower companies but a bad deal for wireless operators.  So many Sprint sites are redundant to T-Mobile sites and vice versa that major cost savings could be had by consolidating site locations.  Decommission redundant sites, add new spectrum to remaining sites, maintain similar coverage footprint with increased capacity for combined subscriber base.  Sprint knows this.
4. 3GPP conversion.  For harmonization and economy of scale, Neal Gompa thinks that Sprint needs to go full 3GPP by adding W-CDMA for voice fallback until VoLTE becomes the de facto standard.  Some of us disagree with his sentiments against CDMA2000 as reactionary and premature.  Moreover, Sprint does not have sufficient PCS spectrum to deploy a W-CDMA 1900 carrier in many markets.  A combined Sprint-T-Mobile, however, would provide more than enough PCS spectrum for such a conversion/overlay.
5. Legere elimination.  A merged Sprint-T-Mobile would send buffoonish CEO John Legere off into the sunset.  Enough said.

AJ

[cletus]

People, this doesn't necessarily mean less competition. But I do think that Sprint would be better off with USCC than with T-Mobile.

I disagree. I feel much of the recent change in the market has been from the moves T-Mobile has made. I liked the sound and price of the T-Mobile plans so I moved to T-Mobile where I didn't have enough coverage and then moved to Ting on the Sprint network. I don't see myself ever having a phone on contract (unless my employer pays for it) ever again. 

 

 

Without T-Mobile putting pressure on the other providers I don't see the decoupling of contracts continuing. Sprint clearly wants to continue to have people on contracts like AT&T and Verizon. I just don't see how absorbing one of 4 major companies and turning it into the big 3 could do anything BUT decrease competition.

[cletus]

I think it would actually provide better competition to the top carriers, now that Sprint would actually be a serious competitor. 

Yeah, If you think having 3 carriers is better for the country I suggest you look at the Canadian market for our possible dystopian mobile future.

[thepowerofdonuts]

Legere elimination.  A merged Sprint-T-Mobile would send buffoonish CEO John Legere off into the sunset.  Enough said.

AJ

 

This!

[MacinJosh]

Legere elimination. A merged Sprint-T-Mobile would send buffoonish CEO John Legere off into the sunset. Enough said.

AJ

Well said, AJ.

 

I disagree. I feel much of the recent change in the market has been from the moves T-Mobile has made. I liked the sound and price of the T-Mobile plans so I moved to T-Mobile where I didn't have enough coverage and then moved to Ting on the Sprint network. I don't see myself ever having a phone on contract (unless my employer pays for it) ever again.

 

 

Without T-Mobile putting pressure on the other providers I don't see the decoupling of contracts continuing. Sprint clearly wants to continue to have people on contracts like AT&T and Verizon. I just don't see how absorbing one of 4 major companies and turning it into the big 3 could do anything BUT decrease competition.

Who said that Sprint will be allowed to keep all that spectrum? They may have to divest some of it to satisfy the government in order to merge with T-Mobile.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

 

[S4GRU]

I just hope the sprint leadership goes away and is replaced by T-Mobile's. Tmobile has better advertising, stores, customer support, better plan to attract customers, speed in major cities, etc. This latest problem with sprint sims has me peeved that they want to lose customers by not providing sims.

 

They do provide SIM's.  And for free.  Why is it you keep babbling about this?  You seem to be the only person who is currently having this problem.  Let me clarify this for you...

 

SPRINT PROVIDES SIM CARDS FOR FREE IN REMOVABLE SIM DEVICES.  And if you want to discuss this further, find another thread.  It is off topic here.

 

Robert

[S4GRU]

I just hope the sprint leadership goes away and is replaced by T-Mobile's. Tmobile has better advertising, stores, customer support, better plan to attract customers, speed in major cities, etc. This latest problem with sprint sims has me peeved that they want to lose customers by not providing sims.

 

This is absurd.  And not a view point shared by many around here.  You need to stop with the SIM's.  Really.  Almost makes me think you're an astroturfer.

 

Robert

[WiWavelength]

I disagree. I feel much of the recent change in the market has been from the moves T-Mobile has made.

 

 

And what if those moves are not financially sustainable long term but just T-Mobile making itself "look pretty" for a sale in the near term?

 

Wireless service should be less expensive, but it is never going to be as cheap as people want it to be.  Face it, these corporations are in business to make money.  They need sufficient ROI.  T-Mobile's current strategies are basically cutting its own ROI.  And I do not believe that those strategies are going to "revolutionize" the industry enough for T-Mobile to gain tremendous market share and be a truly viable competitor to the duopoly.

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

Here are my initial network related thoughts from the Staff thread:

 

Integrating Tmo would not be so bad, really, on the network side.  Set up WCDMA/LTE on Sprint Network Vision sites would be pretty easy.  Then shut down all redundant Tmo sites.  Then convert all unique Tmo coverage sites to Network Vision to include CDMA/WCDMA/LTE.

 

On the device side, continue with Sprint's device ecosystem with CDMA/LTE and WCDMA support too on all new devices.  Obviously a CDMA/WCDMA/LTE device is not a big hurdle anymore.  And with 90M subscribers, Sprint/Tmo combined would have plenty of girth to get OEM's to support this undertaking in new devices.

 

Existing devices would not be affected.  As CDMA customers and WCDMA customers will still be able to access all their existing coverage, and would even have it expanded as more sites are converted with the other technology.  The only hindrance to this really is money and the time to pull it off.  And since those things would be figured out in the feasibility stage, I think it's doable.

 

I don't necessarily support the idea.  It just is completely possible on the network side.  Much more so than iDEN with the technology available in 2006.

 

Robert

 

 

AND WOULDN'T IT BE IRONIC if it was Sprint who brought the backhaul and LTE to all those damn Tmo EDGE sites that Legere likes to pretend do not exist???  

 

Also, I do not buy into the fear about this hindering Network Vision.  Network Vision is already fully paid for and contracted out.  It will continue regardless of a Tmo merger, or not.  This is SoftBank's world now, and the way the old Sprint has done things are now a thing of the past.

 

Robert

[utiz4321]

The immediate histrionics from T-Mobile fanboys and the magenta loving tech press are downright annoying. A few thoughts...

• Sprint-Nextel merger. The negative allusions to an eight year old merger under different leadership are misplaced. If any wireless operator has learned from the mistakes of a poorly executed, drawn out integration strategy, it is Sprint. That learning will serve Sprint well in any future mergers. Additionally, Sprint and Nextel were on different planets both spectrally and technologically. Times have changed. Sprint and T-Mobile are now more similar than many seem to realize.
• 600 MHz auction. Sprint and T-Mobile do not want to bid against one another should the auction actually happen in 2015. That would just inflate bidding and practically ensure that one or the other would come away empty handed in many markets, as there will not be enough spectrum to go around for four national operators plus regional operators.
• Site redundancy. Running four national networks basically in parallel is a great deal for tower companies but a bad deal for wireless operators. So many Sprint sites are redundant to T-Mobile sites and vice versa that major cost savings could be had by consolidating site locations. Decommission redundant sites, add new spectrum to remaining sites, maintain similar coverage footprint with increased capacity for combined subscriber base. Sprint knows this.
• 3GPP conversion. For harmonization and economy of scale, Neal Gompa thinks that Sprint needs to go full 3GPP by adding W-CDMA for voice fallback until VoLTE becomes the de facto standard. Some of us disagree with his sentiments against CDMA2000 as reactionary and premature. Moreover, Sprint does not have sufficient PCS spectrum to deploy a W-CDMA 1900 carrier in many markets. A combined Sprint-T-Mobile, however, would provide more than enough PCS spectrum for such a conversion/overlay.
• Legere elimination. A merged Sprint-T-Mobile would send buffoonish CEO John Legere off into the sunset. Enough said.

AJ

I agree with most of everything you say except the part about site redundancy. 4 carriers seems to be the norm in most industrial nations around the world, Canada has 3 to serve 20 million. We would have the same to serve a market of over 300 million. In my mind this means oligopoly rents being extracted at consumer expense.

[Fraydog]

I'd like to think that a merger would send Legere to Miami to pursue his true calling as a Miami Vice cast member, but I sense that he won't want to ride off. What if he stays and decides he wants to be COO/Heir Apparent?

[JosefTor]

It would be interesting for one of the really smart S4GRU folks to perform a comparison of spectrum and show how similar or dissimilar the networks are.

[JosefTor]

What would Sprint do with the hspda bands do you presume? Use them to have fast speed to fall back on or convert them to 3g or 4g?

[WiWavelength]

What if he stays and decides he wants to be COO/Heir Apparent?

 

No, he would be better suited as the "Hair Apparent."  Snazzy.  Or should I say, nifty.

 

 

AJ

[S4GRU]

I agree with most of everything you say except the part about site redundancy. 4 carriers seems to be the norm in most industrial nations around the world, Canada has 3 to serve 20 million. We would have the same to serve a market of over 300 million. In my mind this means oligopoly rents being extracted at consumer expense.

 

In Europe, there are not 4 carriers that span the whole EU.  Each country typically has one national carriers, one or two large European carriers and perhaps a small local carrier.  We count the locals when we tout European open markets, but when we talk about in the U.S., we only discuss the big national ones.  We need to be fair and include the USCC's, Cincy Bells, CSpires et all in our conversations.  

 

Most European countries do not have 4 large continent wide carriers in each country.  They just don't.  There are much smaller carriers in that mix.  And we need to do more more the smaller carriers in this country...like access to LTE roaming from their competitors at reasonable rates and guaranteed availability to the device ecosystem.  Three national carriers and an even playing field for the locals would ensure a very vibrant US carrier competition.  I could see even spectrum divestiture to smaller local wireless companies as part of this approval.

 

I'm still not for this.  But I think it could be done responsibly.  And if it can be done so responsibly, there is no reason for the government to block it.  The government does not to exist to impose its will upon companies.  It exists to make sure the best solution can be had for the public good.  And there is a route to do that here, if SoftBank and Tmo can agree on all the terms that would likely get handed down to make this work.

 

Robert

[Fraydog]

No, he would be better suited as the "Hair Apparent." Snazzy. Or should I say, nifty.

 

Them there KC people probably too rural for a high falutin' sort like Miami Vice, but if the Sprint HQ moves to Silicon Valley, who knows.

[Terrell352]

I would not be so certain.  There is a world of difference between AT&T-T-Mobile and Sprint-T-Mobile.  One creates an anti competitive behemoth; the other just helps level the playing field.

 

AJ

That would eventually become a anti competitive behemoth just like AT&T and Verizon. I thought you would be against this AJ.